SWINDON TOWN: Town receive apology from Football League Paper

SWINDON Town have released a statement in which they reveal they have accepted an apology from the Football League Paper regarding an article published on Sunday.

The piece, by staff writer Chris Dunlavy, suggested the club committed "financial doping" and "virtually cheated" their way to the League Two title last season.

Town also confirm that the Football League Paper will pay damages, which the Advertiser has been told cover the costs of the club's legal fees incurred by the incident.

The statement read: "Swindon Town Football Club have today accepted the following apology from the Football League Paper following the article which appeared on Sunday 20th January.

A letter was issued to the paper on Monday, demanding a retraction of the article, allied to an unreserved apology and a request for damages. All of these have been agreed to by the Football League Paper."

Swindon also made public the apology sent by Mr Dunlavy, which reads: "Dear Sirs, I am writing to offer my unreserved apologies for my article in the Football League Paper on Sunday 20 January under the headline 'Swindon Town: The 'cheats' who really prospered'.

It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made a grave misrepresentation.

Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly suggested.

My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.

I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments.

I chose the wrong target and for that I am genuinely sorry.

Chris Dunlavy"

Football League Paper editor in chief, David Emery said: "Chris Dunlavy is a fine young journalist who on this occasion allowed his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts. It is a harsh lesson.

"Another regret of this unhappy episode is that, until now, Chris had always enjoyed good relations with Swindon and found the club to be both helpful and accommodating."

In addition, the Football League Paper will make a £500 charity donation to Swindon's chosen charity of the year, the Wiltshire Air Ambulance.

Guilty as charged - now to make sure that this news breaks on SKY and BBC and then as far as I'm concerned, this matter can be put behind us all.
.
I won't hold my breath on the BBC et al being so keen to break this part of the saga to everyone tho, we shall see...

Guilty as charged - now to make sure that this news breaks on SKY and BBC and then as far as I'm concerned, this matter can be put behind us all.
.
I won't hold my breath on the BBC et al being so keen to break this part of the saga to everyone tho, we shall see...avo

Although satisfying to see a retraction and apology, mud still sticks. A thoroughly unjustified attack on our club - all the more sickening when you look at the so-called big clubs and the financial shenanigans they get involved in. Journalists are too scared to stick the knife in on them because they know even if they are right they will get taken to the cleaners by the legal representatives or targeted by the Mob .......

Look at the losses incurred by Chelsea etc - tax avoidance on a grand scale......... I don't know why Chelsea sprang to mind so soon after mentioning the Mob ...........

They couldn't make those damages around £13m could they?
Although satisfying to see a retraction and apology, mud still sticks. A thoroughly unjustified attack on our club - all the more sickening when you look at the so-called big clubs and the financial shenanigans they get involved in. Journalists are too scared to stick the knife in on them because they know even if they are right they will get taken to the cleaners by the legal representatives or targeted by the Mob .......
Look at the losses incurred by Chelsea etc - tax avoidance on a grand scale......... I don't know why Chelsea sprang to mind so soon after mentioning the Mob ...........Psychedelic Syd

I agree. Move on and respond with wins on the pitch and selling to a new owner that isn't like Ken Bates or indeed, isn't Ken Bates.

[quote][p][bold]Stfc_BristolRed[/bold] wrote:
Matter closed as far as I'm concerned.
Only other response or action for us to make is on the pitch!
COYR!![/p][/quote]I agree. Move on and respond with wins on the pitch and selling to a new owner that isn't like Ken Bates or indeed, isn't Ken Bates.mustard red

This is good news but will take a while for the 'bad taste' to go away particularly regarding supporters of other clubs. The damage can't simply be 'undone' by the apology but it's been accepted by STFC and we should all move on. I don't suppose the damages settlement will amount to much but it may help with the loans. A proportion at least could be given to a sport related charity which would put us in good stead.

This is good news but will take a while for the 'bad taste' to go away particularly regarding supporters of other clubs. The damage can't simply be 'undone' by the apology but it's been accepted by STFC and we should all move on. I don't suppose the damages settlement will amount to much but it may help with the loans. A proportion at least could be given to a sport related charity which would put us in good stead.Blazing Riff

Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.

If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of "reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.

This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.

I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -

"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.

Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.

My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.

I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.

I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.

Chris Dunlavy"

Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.

Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.

Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.
If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of "reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.
This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.
I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -
"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.
Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.
My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.
I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.
I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.
Chris Dunlavy"
Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.
Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.Swindon1984

"Town also confirm that the Football League Paper will pay damages."
- Great, that should solve our financial problems for this season :-)
Well done to everybody who wrote to the rag making your views known.Another view

Well done all those supporters who are amongst those who 'made it abundantly clear to me that I have made a grave misrepresentation.'

I received my reply from the editor this morning'

I'm also hoping to see the BBC take some sort of responsibility for their own 'misrepresentation' which was the catalyst for this mess.

More e-mails from us perhaps?

Now then, lets aim for maximum points from four away matches.

Well done all those supporters who are amongst those who 'made it abundantly clear to me that I have made a grave misrepresentation.'
I received my reply from the editor this morning'
I'm also hoping to see the BBC take some sort of responsibility for their own 'misrepresentation' which was the catalyst for this mess.
More e-mails from us perhaps?
Now then, lets aim for maximum points from four away matches.Marmite Soldier

Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!Oi Den!

Swindon1984 wrote:
Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.

If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of &quot;reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.

This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.

I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -

"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.

Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.

My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.

I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.

I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.

Chris Dunlavy"

Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.

Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.

Spot on. I received a similar response from them this morning, but I don't buy it, just an unpleasant swipe at us. Quote, "I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery ".

[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote:
Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.
If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of "reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.
This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.
I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -
"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.
Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.
My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.
I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.
I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.
Chris Dunlavy"
Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.
Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.[/p][/quote]Spot on. I received a similar response from them this morning, but I don't buy it, just an unpleasant swipe at us. Quote, "I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery ".Highworth red

dave bamber`s caravan wrote:
Be interesting to find out how much damages will be paid.....

I don't know if the £500 donation to W A A is considered damages,,,, seem like an emotional let off if it is!!!!!

[quote][p][bold]dave bamber`s caravan[/bold] wrote:
Be interesting to find out how much damages will be paid.....[/p][/quote]I don't know if the £500 donation to W A A is considered damages,,,, seem like an emotional let off if it is!!!!!shawcoyr

dave bamber`s caravan wrote:
Be interesting to find out how much damages will be paid.....

It was quoted in the article ......

"In addition, the Football League Paper will make a £500 charity donation to Swindon's chosen charity of the year, the Wiltshire Air Ambulance"

[quote][p][bold]dave bamber`s caravan[/bold] wrote:
Be interesting to find out how much damages will be paid.....[/p][/quote]It was quoted in the article ......
"In addition, the Football League Paper will make a £500 charity donation to Swindon's chosen charity of the year, the Wiltshire Air Ambulance"Summerof69

I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.

Should have sued them good and proper.

What a prat of a journalist.
ALWAYS DO YOUR INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH, as my old gran always taught me.
I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.
Should have sued them good and proper.madterrier

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Agree with you up to a point Den but by printing the article a great deal of damage has been done to our already murky reputation.
An apology by the newspaper will do little to repair that.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Agree with you up to a point Den but by printing the article a great deal of damage has been done to our already murky reputation.
An apology by the newspaper will do little to repair that.sadgit

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Still leaves a bitter taste but agreed!

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Still leaves a bitter taste but agreed!SAPFanSTFC

Swindon1984 wrote:
Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.

If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of &quot;reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.

This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.

I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -

"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.

Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.

My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.

I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.

I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.

Chris Dunlavy"

Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.

Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.

Hear here! What will be interesting is if their apology is given equal prominence to the original article. I'm not holding my breath but neither will I be buying it to find out. Save your money forevermore is my advice - that is the only language that such rags understand.

How long before they become a sponsor for our FA Cup shirts? ;o)

COYR

[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote:
Absolutely paltry apology as far as I'm concerned - notice how he has tried to mediate the circumstances by saying this was about a wider trend in football - this was an attack on one particular club based on misinformation.
If someone who writes such libellous material on nothing more than the strength of "reported comments about administration" is a "fine young journalist" then heaven help the press in this country. "....his crusading instincts to obscure the true facts" is another crock - translation? Lying or misrepresenting the truth to suit your own ends and prove your own points.
This was a sensationalist piece of utter rubbish which has totally backfired on them - can't imagine any town fan buying the paper again after this.
I'd be far happier if he hadn't tried to weasel out of out and just been honest - something along the lines of -
"It has been made abundantly clear to me by Swindon supporters that I have made THEIR CLUB LOOK LIKE A BUNCH OF CHEATS TO SELL PAPERS.
Swindon Town's debt is owned 98 per cent by Andrew Black, the owner of the club, so no-one has 'gone unpaid' as I wrongly AND TOTALLY MADE UP.
My intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability WHEREAS I ACTUALLY SINGLED OUT SWINDON CAUSE I THOUGHT IT'D MAKE A BETTER STORY.
I saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for my comments LIKE A COMPLETE AMATEUR RATHER THAN TAKING TWO MINUTES TO DO ANY RESEARCH OF MY OWN.
I chose the wrong target and for that I HAVE BEEN FORCED TO WRITE THIS HALF-ARSED APOLOGY OR RISK LOSING MY JOB.
Chris Dunlavy"
Pathetic. The thought that the paper has profited from this is really quite gawling - if they're not sued for damages over this, it'd be nice if a token amount from the profits of that edition was donated to a local charity of the club's choice (Wilts air ambulance or the like). That and a stern lesson to writers and editors alike that there are consequences for publishing bogus stories like this.
Anyway, the best dos vedos would be to keep on winning and see STFC prosper.[/p][/quote]Hear here! What will be interesting is if their apology is given equal prominence to the original article. I'm not holding my breath but neither will I be buying it to find out. Save your money forevermore is my advice - that is the only language that such rags understand.
How long before they become a sponsor for our FA Cup shirts? ;o)
COYRMITTED

I sent the below email to the editor David Emery and also the reporter yesterday:

"Hi, Swindon Town FC fan here. Your recent article accusing Swindon of being cheats etc has certainly caused a furore! Before publishing I need not
remind you of the importance of getting your facts correct, in this instance you seem not to have done this? I'm sure you now realise this but let me inform you anyway, the current debt of the club is owed 100% to the
shareholders (98%) I believe to our main shareholder Andrew Black who of his own free will decided to invest into HIS club...exactly the same as
premiership clubs Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2! The club owes not one penny to the Inland Revenue or indeed to anyone else except solely to our shareholders but principally Andrew Black.

Andrew Black has now decided to sell his shares in our football club and
because of this misinformed and sensationalist reporting has suggested the club is about to go into Administration, plus other slanderous and untrue allegations such as those printed by your newspaper! Both the Editor of the newspaper AND the person who wrote the said article would be subject to any court proceedings.

Our ex chairman and Swindon Town FC are now in the process of taking legal advice and they are being supported and encouraged to do such by the majority of our fan base! I hope you sold extra copies because you may well need this extra revenue to cover any possible court costs and hopefully for us significant damages?

Thank you for reading this and I eagerly await the outcome of events".

I received this reply from the editor David Emery at 11:32am this morning:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making
remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have
contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this
instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried
him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about
the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in
football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards
self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery

Me again...looks like all those emails from us Town fans did the trick?

I sent the below email to the editor David Emery and also the reporter yesterday:
"Hi, Swindon Town FC fan here. Your recent article accusing Swindon of being cheats etc has certainly caused a furore! Before publishing I need not
remind you of the importance of getting your facts correct, in this instance you seem not to have done this? I'm sure you now realise this but let me inform you anyway, the current debt of the club is owed 100% to the
shareholders (98%) I believe to our main shareholder Andrew Black who of his own free will decided to invest into HIS club...exactly the same as
premiership clubs Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2! The club owes not one penny to the Inland Revenue or indeed to anyone else except solely to our shareholders but principally Andrew Black.
Andrew Black has now decided to sell his shares in our football club and
because of this misinformed and sensationalist reporting has suggested the club is about to go into Administration, plus other slanderous and untrue allegations such as those printed by your newspaper! Both the Editor of the newspaper AND the person who wrote the said article would be subject to any court proceedings.
Our ex chairman and Swindon Town FC are now in the process of taking legal advice and they are being supported and encouraged to do such by the majority of our fan base! I hope you sold extra copies because you may well need this extra revenue to cover any possible court costs and hopefully for us significant damages?
Thank you for reading this and I eagerly await the outcome of events".
I received this reply from the editor David Emery at 11:32am this morning:
I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making
remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have
contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this
instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried
him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about
the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in
football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards
self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery
Me again...looks like all those emails from us Town fans did the trick?Lazaat

Marmite Soldier wrote:
Well done all those supporters who are amongst those who 'made it abundantly clear to me that I have made a grave misrepresentation.'

I received my reply from the editor this morning'

I'm also hoping to see the BBC take some sort of responsibility for their own 'misrepresentation' which was the catalyst for this mess.

More e-mails from us perhaps?

Now then, lets aim for maximum points from four away matches.

Ditto I suspect a generic reply was sent to all those who e mailed Emery. At least it scared the manure out of him and Dunlavy I would have thought and cost him time in responding. May have read it wrong but the total danages arw £500 to the wilts AA arent they? Step up Chris unWise from the Beeb your turn now Sonny Jim!

[quote][p][bold]Marmite Soldier[/bold] wrote:
Well done all those supporters who are amongst those who 'made it abundantly clear to me that I have made a grave misrepresentation.'
I received my reply from the editor this morning'
I'm also hoping to see the BBC take some sort of responsibility for their own 'misrepresentation' which was the catalyst for this mess.
More e-mails from us perhaps?
Now then, lets aim for maximum points from four away matches.[/p][/quote]Ditto I suspect a generic reply was sent to all those who e mailed Emery. At least it scared the manure out of him and Dunlavy I would have thought and cost him time in responding. May have read it wrong but the total danages arw £500 to the wilts AA arent they? Step up Chris unWise from the Beeb your turn now Sonny Jim!The Jockster

If the intention was to highlight the financial problems in football as a whole, why didn't he write an article based on that topic insteat of lambasting a club just because the words Administration and Swindon Town apeared in the same media article.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If the intention was to highlight the financial problems in football as a whole, why didn't he write an article based on that topic insteat of lambasting a club just because the words Administration and Swindon Town apeared in the same media article.Rebel_phish

What we also need from Football Leauge Revues rookie journalist is ANOTHER article in next weeks paper saying all this and more. I am sure that its followers will be looking for the latest update on STFC and this creepy little man should eat more humble pie and give them the real facts,including this apology.

What we also need from Football Leauge Revues rookie journalist is ANOTHER article in next weeks paper saying all this and more. I am sure that its followers will be looking for the latest update on STFC and this creepy little man should eat more humble pie and give them the real facts,including this apology.glasred

Rebel_phish wrote:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

If the intention was to highlight the financial problems in football as a whole, why didn't he write an article based on that topic insteat of lambasting a club just because the words Administration and Swindon Town apeared in the same media article.

Because he's not a fine young journalist.

He's a very naughty boy.

[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
If the intention was to highlight the financial problems in football as a whole, why didn't he write an article based on that topic insteat of lambasting a club just because the words Administration and Swindon Town apeared in the same media article.[/p][/quote]Because he's not a fine young journalist.
He's a very naughty boy.madterrier

Well we banged that one to rights chaps!nice bit of grovling and an apology with small damages!if the board are happy,that's good enough for me!but what about a rather large headline in the Rag retracting the pack of lies!I won't hold my breath chaps!!!!!!!

Well we banged that one to rights chaps!nice bit of grovling and an apology with small damages!if the board are happy,that's good enough for me!but what about a rather large headline in the Rag retracting the pack of lies!I won't hold my breath chaps!!!!!!!the don69

Damages represents financial compensation paid to a party that has been wronged in some way. Legal costs are quite separate.

One for a fine young journalist at the Adver to investigate perhaps?

Incidentally, 'damages' are different to 'costs'.
Damages represents financial compensation paid to a party that has been wronged in some way. Legal costs are quite separate.
One for a fine young journalist at the Adver to investigate perhaps?madterrier

Lazaat wrote:
I sent the below email to the editor David Emery and also the reporter yesterday:

&quot;Hi, Swindon Town FC fan here. Your recent article accusing Swindon of being cheats etc has certainly caused a furore! Before publishing I need not
remind you of the importance of getting your facts correct, in this instance you seem not to have done this? I'm sure you now realise this but let me inform you anyway, the current debt of the club is owed 100% to the
shareholders (98%) I believe to our main shareholder Andrew Black who of his own free will decided to invest into HIS club...exactly the same as
premiership clubs Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2! The club owes not one penny to the Inland Revenue or indeed to anyone else except solely to our shareholders but principally Andrew Black.

Andrew Black has now decided to sell his shares in our football club and
because of this misinformed and sensationalist reporting has suggested the club is about to go into Administration, plus other slanderous and untrue allegations such as those printed by your newspaper! Both the Editor of the newspaper AND the person who wrote the said article would be subject to any court proceedings.

Our ex chairman and Swindon Town FC are now in the process of taking legal advice and they are being supported and encouraged to do such by the majority of our fan base! I hope you sold extra copies because you may well need this extra revenue to cover any possible court costs and hopefully for us significant damages?

Thank you for reading this and I eagerly await the outcome of events".

I received this reply from the editor David Emery at 11:32am this morning:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making
remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have
contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this
instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried
him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about
the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in
football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards
self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery

Me again...looks like all those emails from us Town fans did the trick?

Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
I sent the below email to the editor David Emery and also the reporter yesterday:
"Hi, Swindon Town FC fan here. Your recent article accusing Swindon of being cheats etc has certainly caused a furore! Before publishing I need not
remind you of the importance of getting your facts correct, in this instance you seem not to have done this? I'm sure you now realise this but let me inform you anyway, the current debt of the club is owed 100% to the
shareholders (98%) I believe to our main shareholder Andrew Black who of his own free will decided to invest into HIS club...exactly the same as
premiership clubs Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2! The club owes not one penny to the Inland Revenue or indeed to anyone else except solely to our shareholders but principally Andrew Black.
Andrew Black has now decided to sell his shares in our football club and
because of this misinformed and sensationalist reporting has suggested the club is about to go into Administration, plus other slanderous and untrue allegations such as those printed by your newspaper! Both the Editor of the newspaper AND the person who wrote the said article would be subject to any court proceedings.
Our ex chairman and Swindon Town FC are now in the process of taking legal advice and they are being supported and encouraged to do such by the majority of our fan base! I hope you sold extra copies because you may well need this extra revenue to cover any possible court costs and hopefully for us significant damages?
Thank you for reading this and I eagerly await the outcome of events".
I received this reply from the editor David Emery at 11:32am this morning:
I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making
remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have
contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this
instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried
him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about
the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in
football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards
self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey's reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery
Me again...looks like all those emails from us Town fans did the trick?[/p][/quote]Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.The Jockster

Well done to all. Whilst it would have been nice to get greater compensation, the legal costs would have been significant and the damages would not have been huge. Reasonable outcome but need the retraction and apology to be printed in the newspaper so that all readers get the message.
I made a formal complaint to Sky on Saturday but don't have a response yet.

Well done to all. Whilst it would have been nice to get greater compensation, the legal costs would have been significant and the damages would not have been huge. Reasonable outcome but need the retraction and apology to be printed in the newspaper so that all readers get the message.
I made a formal complaint to Sky on Saturday but don't have a response yet.eastmidsred

I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.

Should have sued them good and proper.

Watch this space J-Wray may yet do so!
:-)
----
As for other comments on BBC and Sky - what chance of that eh!?....Two is my best guess.

[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote:
What a prat of a journalist.
ALWAYS DO YOUR INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH, as my old gran always taught me.
I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.
Should have sued them good and proper.[/p][/quote]Watch this space J-Wray may yet do so!
:-)
----
As for other comments on BBC and Sky - what chance of that eh!?....Two is my best guess.SAPFanSTFC

I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.

Should have sued them good and proper.

I was always taught the importance of the 6P formula:

Propper
Preparation
Prevents
P1ss
Poor
Performance

[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote:
What a prat of a journalist.
ALWAYS DO YOUR INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH, as my old gran always taught me.
I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.
Should have sued them good and proper.[/p][/quote]I was always taught the importance of the 6P formula:
Propper
Preparation
Prevents
P1ss
Poor
PerformanceRebel_phish

I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.

Should have sued them good and proper.

I was always taught the importance of the 6P formula:

Propper
Preparation
Prevents
P1ss
Poor
Performance

I'll use 3 Rebel!Proper,Pratt, Perverting the Truth,the one and only Chris Dunlavy!!!!!!LOL

[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote:
What a prat of a journalist.
ALWAYS DO YOUR INVESTIGATIVE RESEARCH, as my old gran always taught me.
I think we have let them off the hook. The damage to our reputation has already been done, and an enforced apology only retrieves about 10% of the situation in my opinion.
Should have sued them good and proper.[/p][/quote]I was always taught the importance of the 6P formula:
Propper
Preparation
Prevents
P1ss
Poor
Performance[/p][/quote]I'll use 3 Rebel!Proper,Pratt, Perverting the Truth,the one and only Chris Dunlavy!!!!!!LOLthe don69

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.

Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.
Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.Swindon1984

Got my generic response today like everyone else. For me seeing as they are paying the clubs legal costs and donating £500 to the Air ambulance fund then if they print a full page apology in next Sundays paper then thats it. Draw a line and move on, but Town fans i applaud everyone who contacted either Chris Dunlavy or David Emery to register their disgust at the article. It might make them ensure proper research is done before they attack us in the future.

Got my generic response today like everyone else. For me seeing as they are paying the clubs legal costs and donating £500 to the Air ambulance fund then if they print a full page apology in next Sundays paper then thats it. Draw a line and move on, but Town fans i applaud everyone who contacted either Chris Dunlavy or David Emery to register their disgust at the article. It might make them ensure proper research is done before they attack us in the future.kammyselbow

Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!glasred

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.

Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.

I don't think there was anything particularly malicious with Dunlavey's piece,, it appears that football finances are his thing and he saw an opportunity to make a point.

Doesn't absolve him though.

Agree with Oi Den that the apology is sincere however it will be telling where in the paper the apology appears.

Just proves how poorly worded Patey's comments were that allowed this level of reporting.

Lets not forget, the written press, NBC, sky and talksport all thought the same.

Just hope we can all move on now.

[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.
Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.[/p][/quote]I don't think there was anything particularly malicious with Dunlavey's piece,, it appears that football finances are his thing and he saw an opportunity to make a point.
Doesn't absolve him though.
Agree with Oi Den that the apology is sincere however it will be telling where in the paper the apology appears.
Just proves how poorly worded Patey's comments were that allowed this level of reporting.
Lets not forget, the written press, NBC, sky and talksport all thought the same.
Just hope we can all move on now.LydiardRED67

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.

Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.

I don't think there was anything particularly malicious with Dunlavey's piece,, it appears that football finances are his thing and he saw an opportunity to make a point.

Doesn't absolve him though.

Agree with Oi Den that the apology is sincere however it will be telling where in the paper the apology appears.

Just proves how poorly worded Patey's comments were that allowed this level of reporting.

Lets not forget, the written press, NBC, sky and talksport all thought the same.

Just hope we can all move on now.

BBC, not NBC. Oops.

[quote][p][bold]LydiardRED67[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Absolutely fair enough to have a difference of opinion, and to be fair I reckon this was just completely misjudged from the journo - saw a potential story which seemed to be proof of his theories in general, jumped in with both feet and is probably regretting it a fair bit now. Hopefully this will be nothing but a steep learning curve on a good career for him. I still wholeheartedly feel that the apology sounded more like an excuse (although a diplomatic answer is what was expected - no-one's going to dig themselves a deeper hole in that situation!) but what's done is done. We don't want blood, just a full retraction which is what we've had.
Den - good comments, and I would normally be a bit more measured but this one particularly got to me, just because of the knee-jerk way it was reported - as I said before two minutes of research would have completely scuppered any attempt to write the piece in good conscience, he obviously hasn't done so and the article reflects that. Lucky the jibe was aimed at STFC and not an individual is all I can say, or there really would have been a law suit put forward.[/p][/quote]I don't think there was anything particularly malicious with Dunlavey's piece,, it appears that football finances are his thing and he saw an opportunity to make a point.
Doesn't absolve him though.
Agree with Oi Den that the apology is sincere however it will be telling where in the paper the apology appears.
Just proves how poorly worded Patey's comments were that allowed this level of reporting.
Lets not forget, the written press, NBC, sky and talksport all thought the same.
Just hope we can all move on now.[/p][/quote]BBC, not NBC. Oops.LydiardRED67

glasred wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

and your source???

[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!![/p][/quote]and your source???old town robin

glasred wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

and your source???

Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.

Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.

Good old Wikipedia.

Now come on own up which one of you posted it?

[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!![/p][/quote]and your source???[/p][/quote]Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.
Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.
Good old Wikipedia.
Now come on own up which one of you posted it?RobinsTalk

glasred wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

You've either been on that rumour site or illegal substances...

[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!![/p][/quote]You've either been on that rumour site or illegal substances...Med Red

The Jockster wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.

you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.[/p][/quote]you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)avo

Not sure its been mentioned on here BUT is the FLP going to print a front page apology to STFC? (have not seen the original article, but the apology should be FRONT PAGE and AT LEAST 50% bigger than the original article).

Not sure its been mentioned on here BUT is the FLP going to print a front page apology to STFC? (have not seen the original article, but the apology should be FRONT PAGE and AT LEAST 50% bigger than the original article).supersaver

Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?

Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?rockdog

Whilst misinformed I think the article still highlights a significant issue, even if one person owns the debt it still plunges the club into a period of uncertainty / crisis if they then want out.
*
I am still completely confused as to why AB has chosen this PR approach to selling the club as it seems the most detrimental. Let's just hope we get some new investors soon who can keep alive the Championship dream...

Whilst misinformed I think the article still highlights a significant issue, even if one person owns the debt it still plunges the club into a period of uncertainty / crisis if they then want out.
*
I am still completely confused as to why AB has chosen this PR approach to selling the club as it seems the most detrimental. Let's just hope we get some new investors soon who can keep alive the Championship dream...Stratton Red

The Jockster wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.

you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)

Avo my apologies m'lud this bloody site is so slow at accepting comments at times - how things these days with you? Well I hope and enjoying the Pdc express

[quote][p][bold]avo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.[/p][/quote]you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)[/p][/quote]Avo my apologies m'lud this bloody site is so slow at accepting comments at times - how things these days with you? Well I hope and enjoying the Pdc expressThe Jockster

Stilloyal wrote:
Here's the front runner to buy the club; Sheik Mah Beeg Waddah Dollah. He's got a couple of quid I hear and he wants Town in Europe in a five year plan.

More likely to be Ken Bates...

[quote][p][bold]Stilloyal[/bold] wrote:
Here's the front runner to buy the club; Sheik Mah Beeg Waddah Dollah. He's got a couple of quid I hear and he wants Town in Europe in a five year plan.[/p][/quote]More likely to be Ken Bates...Stratton Red

rockdog wrote:
Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?

I think you're on the wrong track here. This whole thing has been a ****-up, not a conspiracy. The club gave a masterclass in PR disaster and Chris Dunlavy matched it with his careless, if well-intentioned, article.
.
We don't get picked on by the FA or the Football League. The League did treat us savagely once, but that was over 20 years ago. I don't recall anything untoward since then. Also, it should be remembered that the FA overruled the League and halved that 1990 penalty from a double demotion to a single one. So I think it's a myth that we're badly treated. We could mutter about fines, suspensions etc - but so could every club in the land. I think we need to stop playing the victim. Maybe someone will point out that I've overlooked some inconsistency but I honestly can't think of any.

[quote][p][bold]rockdog[/bold] wrote:
Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?[/p][/quote]I think you're on the wrong track here. This whole thing has been a ****-up, not a conspiracy. The club gave a masterclass in PR disaster and Chris Dunlavy matched it with his careless, if well-intentioned, article.
.
We don't get picked on by the FA or the Football League. The League did treat us savagely once, but that was over 20 years ago. I don't recall anything untoward since then. Also, it should be remembered that the FA overruled the League and halved that 1990 penalty from a double demotion to a single one. So I think it's a myth that we're badly treated. We could mutter about fines, suspensions etc - but so could every club in the land. I think we need to stop playing the victim. Maybe someone will point out that I've overlooked some inconsistency but I honestly can't think of any.Oi Den!

The Jockster wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.

you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)

Avo my apologies m'lud this bloody site is so slow at accepting comments at times - how things these days with you? Well I hope and enjoying the Pdc express

Course it was a generic reply, Jock, ya daft p1llock. He wasn't going to write dozens of separate emails, was he?!
.
I think your mate Stratton is dead right. It was great that AB and co came in and rescued the club, but the historical debt is still there. It's just that it's largely been taken on by AB. We await developments on that.
.
I had my questions about the motives of Fitton, Wray, Black and Arbib when they took over the club; I think we are still none the wiser on that. However, I became convinced that the club was in good hands.
.
There's been a lot of talk about this being a "positive" episode. Surely I'm not the only one who wishes we still had AB, MA, AF and JW driving the PDC express forward? God save us from some remote person who promises the earth but knows nothing of Swindon Town - and cares even less.

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]avo[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Exactly the same reply - generic to all as I said in my earlier post.[/p][/quote]you can say that again! Oh hang on a minute, you've said it twice already old bean...........
.
my mistake ;-)[/p][/quote]Avo my apologies m'lud this bloody site is so slow at accepting comments at times - how things these days with you? Well I hope and enjoying the Pdc express[/p][/quote]Course it was a generic reply, Jock, ya daft p1llock. He wasn't going to write dozens of separate emails, was he?!
.
I think your mate Stratton is dead right. It was great that AB and co came in and rescued the club, but the historical debt is still there. It's just that it's largely been taken on by AB. We await developments on that.
.
I had my questions about the motives of Fitton, Wray, Black and Arbib when they took over the club; I think we are still none the wiser on that. However, I became convinced that the club was in good hands.
.
There's been a lot of talk about this being a "positive" episode. Surely I'm not the only one who wishes we still had AB, MA, AF and JW driving the PDC express forward? God save us from some remote person who promises the earth but knows nothing of Swindon Town - and cares even less.Oi Den!

Here's one for Mr Chris Dunlavy!Spurs finished fourth in the Prem last season and with all the tv money,gate revenue,sponsors dosh they still lost nearly £4.5m,go hassle them!me thinks Villa need another goal or they ain't gonna be very pleased with Lambert and his team!!!!!!!!come on Bradford!!

Here's one for Mr Chris Dunlavy!Spurs finished fourth in the Prem last season and with all the tv money,gate revenue,sponsors dosh they still lost nearly £4.5m,go hassle them!me thinks Villa need another goal or they ain't gonna be very pleased with Lambert and his team!!!!!!!!come on Bradford!!the don69

glasred wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

and your source???

Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.

Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.

Good old Wikipedia.

Now come on own up which one of you posted it?

Never heard of the bloke before and bizarrely just wathching TV and there has just been a big piece on him on the itv news it is fate LOL

[quote][p][bold]RobinsTalk[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!![/p][/quote]and your source???[/p][/quote]Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.
Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.
Good old Wikipedia.
Now come on own up which one of you posted it?[/p][/quote]Never heard of the bloke before and bizarrely just wathching TV and there has just been a big piece on him on the itv news it is fate LOLLambourn Red

glasred wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!!

and your source???

Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.

Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.

Good old Wikipedia.

Now come on own up which one of you posted it?

Never heard of the bloke before and bizarrely just wathching TV and there has just been a big piece on him on the itv news it is fate LOL

If this is true and the wealth is as stated why are they bothering to negotiate, surely they have spare cash just laying around lol.

That sort of wealth will seriously upset some, especially the six fingered, webbed feet variety just down the 420, bigger lol.

[quote][p][bold]Lambourn Red[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]RobinsTalk[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]glasred[/bold] wrote:
Al Waleed Bin Talal (thanks to SWP)is in negotiations to buy out AB. Worth 18billion his son is interested in football and would have an active roll in running the club.Negotiations are well under way.!![/p][/quote]and your source???[/p][/quote]Ha ha, oh dear, you seem to have fallen for the Wikipedia entry that has appeared on his profile.
Would love it to be true but, I very much think a pinch of salt is required regarding that particular paragraph.
Good old Wikipedia.
Now come on own up which one of you posted it?[/p][/quote]Never heard of the bloke before and bizarrely just wathching TV and there has just been a big piece on him on the itv news it is fate LOL[/p][/quote]If this is true and the wealth is as stated why are they bothering to negotiate, surely they have spare cash just laying around lol.
That sort of wealth will seriously upset some, especially the six fingered, webbed feet variety just down the 420, bigger lol.the wizard

rockdog wrote:
Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?

I think you're on the wrong track here. This whole thing has been a ****-up, not a conspiracy. The club gave a masterclass in PR disaster and Chris Dunlavy matched it with his careless, if well-intentioned, article.
.
We don't get picked on by the FA or the Football League. The League did treat us savagely once, but that was over 20 years ago. I don't recall anything untoward since then. Also, it should be remembered that the FA overruled the League and halved that 1990 penalty from a double demotion to a single one. So I think it's a myth that we're badly treated. We could mutter about fines, suspensions etc - but so could every club in the land. I think we need to stop playing the victim. Maybe someone will point out that I've overlooked some inconsistency but I honestly can't think of any.

You are right.

Consequently the FA then took over running football from the buffoons at the FL and soon set up the premier league.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]rockdog[/bold] wrote:
Why, when the ''bigger'' clubs, i.e. Premiership clubs have committed financial irregularities on a regular basis and manage to get away with it because the FA are so cowardly and afraid of them, do Swindon Town get picked on on a fairly regular basis? Anyone got any ideas on this? What have the club done to deserved this?[/p][/quote]I think you're on the wrong track here. This whole thing has been a ****-up, not a conspiracy. The club gave a masterclass in PR disaster and Chris Dunlavy matched it with his careless, if well-intentioned, article.
.
We don't get picked on by the FA or the Football League. The League did treat us savagely once, but that was over 20 years ago. I don't recall anything untoward since then. Also, it should be remembered that the FA overruled the League and halved that 1990 penalty from a double demotion to a single one. So I think it's a myth that we're badly treated. We could mutter about fines, suspensions etc - but so could every club in the land. I think we need to stop playing the victim. Maybe someone will point out that I've overlooked some inconsistency but I honestly can't think of any.[/p][/quote]You are right.
Consequently the FA then took over running football from the buffoons at the FL and soon set up the premier league.red white

Stickshaker wrote:
Step forward BBC's Chris Wise....you started this....nows the time to apologise and not hide behind your microphone!

If you are refering to the question Chris Wise asked Patey then I don't believe he should apologise.

If "Can you rule out Administration" is the question it is not Chris Wise's fault that the answer "No chariman in the country can rule that out" is the bit that has been used to generate the headlines.

If Chris Wise generated the headline then yes he should apologise.

On the Paper's apology, I am a bit surprised that this has not been reported anywhere. Usually a footballer only has to **** for it to be reported. Guilty feeling ????

COYMR

[quote][p][bold]Stickshaker[/bold] wrote:
Step forward BBC's Chris Wise....you started this....nows the time to apologise and not hide behind your microphone![/p][/quote]If you are refering to the question Chris Wise asked Patey then I don't believe he should apologise.
If "Can you rule out Administration" is the question it is not Chris Wise's fault that the answer "No chariman in the country can rule that out" is the bit that has been used to generate the headlines.
If Chris Wise generated the headline then yes he should apologise.
On the Paper's apology, I am a bit surprised that this has not been reported anywhere. Usually a footballer only has to **** for it to be reported. Guilty feeling ????
COYMROxon-Red

And well done Orient to hold Brentford to a draw away from home, The Bees move 1 point ahead of us, albeit played a game more. That's 2 points dropped by my reckoning.

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
Congrats to Bantums tonight, job well done.[/p][/quote]And congrats to the Bantams too![/p][/quote]And well done Orient to hold Brentford to a draw away from home, The Bees move 1 point ahead of us, albeit played a game more. That's 2 points dropped by my reckoning.old town robin

Oi Den! wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first!

Oi Den,

It is one thing to say an apology is sufficient, but how can you measure the damage that has been done to our reputation. I can't and neither can you. Are you going to be at Tranmere and other away fixtures where the chants will be Cheats and Swindletown. Yes you can say you have heard it all before, but if we go on to gain promotion this season there is always going to be a few mis-informed that believe that we have played unfair, partly because of their dislike for Paolo, but many because of this article. After all mud sticks and in the eyes of some there is no smoke without fire.

I understand your thoughts are well meaning that everything is kosha with an apology, but don't be so naive to think that damage on our good name is just forgotten by an apology in a newspaper, i don't believe that for one second and with your experience of life neither shoud you.

The article states the club has accepted damages, but has Jeremy Wray, or are they answering on his behalf

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Sorry '84. I completely disagree. I was as angry as anyone on Sunday. But I believe the apology is clear, unreserved and genuine. Dunlavy made a serious mistake in an honest but misguided attempt to highlight the financial mess footbal is in. Line now drawn as far as I am concerned. I'll continue to buy the paper and I'm sure Dunlavy's articles will continue to inform and entertain. The difference from now on will be that he checks the facts first![/p][/quote]Oi Den,
It is one thing to say an apology is sufficient, but how can you measure the damage that has been done to our reputation. I can't and neither can you. Are you going to be at Tranmere and other away fixtures where the chants will be Cheats and Swindletown. Yes you can say you have heard it all before, but if we go on to gain promotion this season there is always going to be a few mis-informed that believe that we have played unfair, partly because of their dislike for Paolo, but many because of this article. After all mud sticks and in the eyes of some there is no smoke without fire.
I understand your thoughts are well meaning that everything is kosha with an apology, but don't be so naive to think that damage on our good name is just forgotten by an apology in a newspaper, i don't believe that for one second and with your experience of life neither shoud you.
The article states the club has accepted damages, but has Jeremy Wray, or are they answering on his behalfold town robin

OTR, my point is simply that taking the matter further would do nobody any good. I didn't say the damage had been repaired. An apology cannot certainly not repair it. What would a court case achieve? The paper and the individual journalist have already accepted that they made a grave mistake, damages are being paid and a contribution is being made to charity. I am not sure what more you van expect. Yes, we could indeed pursue the Football League Paper in the courts. To what end? I do not want to be one of those who forced the closure of a newspaper that actually cares about the Football League in an era when obsession with the Premier League is almost a national sport in itself. Naive? I don't think so.

OTR, my point is simply that taking the matter further would do nobody any good. I didn't say the damage had been repaired. An apology cannot certainly not repair it. What would a court case achieve? The paper and the individual journalist have already accepted that they made a grave mistake, damages are being paid and a contribution is being made to charity. I am not sure what more you van expect. Yes, we could indeed pursue the Football League Paper in the courts. To what end? I do not want to be one of those who forced the closure of a newspaper that actually cares about the Football League in an era when obsession with the Premier League is almost a national sport in itself. Naive? I don't think so.Oi Den!

Oi Den! wrote:
OTR, my point is simply that taking the matter further would do nobody any good. I didn't say the damage had been repaired. An apology cannot certainly not repair it. What would a court case achieve? The paper and the individual journalist have already accepted that they made a grave mistake, damages are being paid and a contribution is being made to charity. I am not sure what more you van expect. Yes, we could indeed pursue the Football League Paper in the courts. To what end? I do not want to be one of those who forced the closure of a newspaper that actually cares about the Football League in an era when obsession with the Premier League is almost a national sport in itself. Naive? I don't think so.

Again, very good points. They won't be the first paper to have printed statements which are less than true and won't be the last, however it does seem to be an overzealous and reckless bit of reporting rather than an orchestrated attempt to damage the reputation of the club (totally different ball park to the People for example).

I'd also challenge some people's views that there are various parties out to get us at the moment, I really don't believe that's the case. Fans of other clubs will always jump on this sort of story to have a dig at us but that's to be expected and let's be honest, we would do the same in their shoes (thinking of my delight about the Oxford/London Welsh story which again wasn't entirely accurate and made more of the story than was there).

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
OTR, my point is simply that taking the matter further would do nobody any good. I didn't say the damage had been repaired. An apology cannot certainly not repair it. What would a court case achieve? The paper and the individual journalist have already accepted that they made a grave mistake, damages are being paid and a contribution is being made to charity. I am not sure what more you van expect. Yes, we could indeed pursue the Football League Paper in the courts. To what end? I do not want to be one of those who forced the closure of a newspaper that actually cares about the Football League in an era when obsession with the Premier League is almost a national sport in itself. Naive? I don't think so.[/p][/quote]Again, very good points. They won't be the first paper to have printed statements which are less than true and won't be the last, however it does seem to be an overzealous and reckless bit of reporting rather than an orchestrated attempt to damage the reputation of the club (totally different ball park to the People for example).
I'd also challenge some people's views that there are various parties out to get us at the moment, I really don't believe that's the case. Fans of other clubs will always jump on this sort of story to have a dig at us but that's to be expected and let's be honest, we would do the same in their shoes (thinking of my delight about the Oxford/London Welsh story which again wasn't entirely accurate and made more of the story than was there).Swindon1984